word!

Had a issue today that got me thinking about Capitalism if you could call it that.

Since when is acceptable for someone to get something from you for nothing while maintaining that everything they have is intrinsically more valuable. Is that some awful kind of double standard or is just a inherent flaw of capitalism? Buy low, sell high? I’d beg to differ.

I’m sure most people you could find would give you a decent price on an object taken at random and well known to them. Almost everyone will tell you a small bottle of pop (not soda, mind you) is priced about a $1, give or take. It’s only when you get charged a $5 for same bottle or heaven forbid maybe just a nickel. I’m sure most people would have no issue with a nickel for a pop if it was lawfully sold that way. But at $5 a pop, it would seem a line would be crossed, albeit that it may viewed as sensible at a sporting event / middle of parched desert, but I think you see the point.

But how do you draw the line at something less common yet similar in pricing? I think when you barter or trade, the price is usually agreed upon between the two parties with both giving something in order to make the deal worthwhile and agreeable to all involved. Maybe it’s when one party assumes a value that is out of line with common value and the other fails to realize that they are being robbed blind.

Maybe it’s just things are ALWAYS costing more, but when is enough enough? I hate getting robbed for what I own, while the next guy can get away with highway robbery for same thing they own.